Feds ask Supreme Court to uphold seizure of Kim Dotcom’s millions

That's because Dotcom, the defense maintains, isn't a fugitive because he is lawfully challenging his extradition in the New Zealand courts.

I find this argument quite compelling.

Refusing to roll over and waive/cede all your legal rights so that the prosecution has no opposition doesn't make you a fugitive.

Jumping bail would. But exhausting your appeals doesn't.

It's not compelling because if he successfully fights extradition, he still doesn't get those assets back. If he successfully argues that he broke no laws in New Zealand, and is not subject to extradition then he cannot be prosecuted there.But he still did break laws outside of New Zealand. He is subject to those laws outside of New Zealand and any assets he holds outside of New Zealand are also subject to the laws in which those assets are held.If you want to do things that are illegal in one nation but illegal in others you need to operate your businesses, live, and keep your assets in the nation or nations in which those actions are legal.If he wants to fight to retrieve the seized assets, then he's going to have to subject himself to that nation's legal authority in person. Legal rights and legal accountability are a matched set.

Aside from the servers which were rented, his "assets" weren't in the US. What jurisdiction did we have to take them?

International treaties between our nation and the nation in which the assets were held. We have jurisdiction over those assets because the sovereign nations in which they are held chose to give us jurisdiction over them. We requested that they seize the assets pending the criminal investigation and they chose to do so. Dotcom can attempt to fight the seizure of those assets in those countries our in our country, but pretty much no sovereign nation is going to listen to an appeal while you refuse to subject yourself to their laws.If you want to operate out of one nation that allows your action while breaking the laws of other nations, you had better keep your assets in the country you are operating out of.

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

When you make Dotcom look like the good guy, maybe the 'Justice' Department should change its name..

I suffer under no delusions that Dotcom is "the good guy", even though this asset seizure stuff reeks of BS.

I don't think you could really be comparing the legality or morality of the 'Justice' Dept.

I'm not. Others seem to be.

Quote:

(a part of govt in charge of actually applying THE LAW, for which we are paying for with our taxes; also, hilariously enough, it has "Justice' in its name) to any random dude from NZ.

edit: that's like ppl saying "the cop shot that guy because he disrespected him and was rude"; we pay the cop to be lawful, not the random guy, it's his job he signed up for

It kinda looks like you are, too.

Ain't no "good guy" here. Just a DoJ that's stretching the idea of "justice" to the breaking point and a vile excuse of a human being scumbag.

and, funny enough, the 'vile excuse of a human being scumbag' is the one standing up for your rights against the ones who's salaries you are paying for

I'm sorry, but you really missed my point

edit: let me try another analogy here: Dotcom is like Larry Flint or Hugh Hefner standing up for free speech, you don't have to like pornography to appreciate that

Dotcom is not "standing up for out rights" he's in it for the only person he's ever given a damn for, himself. Others may benefit from the outcome of his court fight, but he's standing up for anyone but himself

Word on the street is he was using his IT infrastructure to help Wikileaks, which would explain why the US government went out of bounds to punish him. He is not a US citizen, he never set foot in the US and he did not do business in the US yet they seized his bank accounts and assets in other countries and now they want to keep it because he is a "fugitive"? That really is above and beyond anything reasonable. Oh and this is supposed to be about him violating copyright law only?

Even Americans don't believe me when I explain what is "eminent domain."Few people have a problem if a public road is to be built and some private houses are in the way and the government forces the owners to sell and are given a fair market price (or better)This is acceptable because the road is for everyone (the public.)

In the USA if a mall or housing development is wanted by a profit seeking person or company and you don't want to sell, or you want a higher price than you are being offered, it is perfectly legal for any state, city, county or federal government to force you off your property even if you do not accept what the government offers to pay you. The government who now owns the property, can sell the property (but often just gives it) to the profit seeking developer.

How many developed countries are allowed to do this to their private citizens simply to enrich some already enriched entity. Yet the US is so preachy proud of their "free markets" and lack of government interference.

Off topic, but, remember who voted for the expansive public/private purpose taking justification: Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Kelo v. City of New London.

That's because Dotcom, the defense maintains, isn't a fugitive because he is lawfully challenging his extradition in the New Zealand courts.

I find this argument quite compelling.

Refusing to roll over and waive/cede all your legal rights so that the prosecution has no opposition doesn't make you a fugitive.

Jumping bail would. But exhausting your appeals doesn't.

America views the entire world as under its dominion and within its jurisdiction. The fact Dotcom has never set foot in America is irrelevant. He implicitly subjected himself to American jurisdiction the second he decided to draw breath on this planet and he will be under American jurisdiction till the day he dies (and beyond, as far as tax purposes go).

This article is poorly written. All the people asking how does the US seizes things from other countries, they don't. They ask those countries judicial and law enforcement systems to do it in accordance with whatever law enforcement agreements they have. These countries don't have to comply. It would be like China asking the US marshals to seize things from a US citizen. If the request is legal and valid, they would do it.

I think this case is over the top, and I don't agree with asset forfeiture in general, but it's not a case of US law enforcement just storming into countries and taking whatever they want.

Kim lost all credibility when he spread lies online against he USA government. I get he might hate them, but trying to take a family with you who is mourning the death of their son is sick and irresponsible.

America views the entire world as under its dominion and within its jurisdiction. The fact Dotcom has never set foot in America is irrelevant. He implicitly subjected himself to American jurisdiction the second he decided to draw breath on this planet and he will be under American jurisdiction till the day he dies (and beyond, as far as tax purposes go).

Or, you know, the moment he did business in the US, but enjoy your hyperbole hate-on.

That's because Dotcom, the defense maintains, isn't a fugitive because he is lawfully challenging his extradition in the New Zealand courts.

I find this argument quite compelling.

Refusing to roll over and waive/cede all your legal rights so that the prosecution has no opposition doesn't make you a fugitive.

Jumping bail would. But exhausting your appeals doesn't.

It's not compelling because if he successfully fights extradition, he still doesn't get those assets back. If he successfully argues that he broke no laws in New Zealand, and is not subject to extradition then he cannot be prosecuted there.But he still did break laws outside of New Zealand. He is subject to those laws outside of New Zealand and any assets he holds outside of New Zealand are also subject to the laws in which those assets are held.If you want to do things that are illegal in one nation but illegal in others you need to operate your businesses, live, and keep your assets in the nation or nations in which those actions are legal.If he wants to fight to retrieve the seized assets, then he's going to have to subject himself to that nation's legal authority in person. Legal rights and legal accountability are a matched set.

I like your final statement because it completely undermines your entire previous argument.

Both the accused and the assets resided in New Zealand. Neither are fugitives from New Zealand law.

That's because Dotcom, the defense maintains, isn't a fugitive because he is lawfully challenging his extradition in the New Zealand courts.

I find this argument quite compelling.

Refusing to roll over and waive/cede all your legal rights so that the prosecution has no opposition doesn't make you a fugitive.

Jumping bail would. But exhausting your appeals doesn't.

It's not compelling because if he successfully fights extradition, he still doesn't get those assets back. If he successfully argues that he broke no laws in New Zealand, and is not subject to extradition then he cannot be prosecuted there.But he still did break laws outside of New Zealand. He is subject to those laws outside of New Zealand and any assets he holds outside of New Zealand are also subject to the laws in which those assets are held.If you want to do things that are illegal in one nation but illegal in others you need to operate your businesses, live, and keep your assets in the nation or nations in which those actions are legal.If he wants to fight to retrieve the seized assets, then he's going to have to subject himself to that nation's legal authority in person. Legal rights and legal accountability are a matched set.

I like your final statement because it completely undermines your entire previous argument.

Both the accused and the assets resided in New Zealand. Neither are fugitives from New Zealand law.

Contention is that he operated servers in the US.

The assets (and him via extradition) are exposed to that liability because of NZ-US treaties.

Any principle and legal right in a just society has to be measured on how well we can adhere to them in the face of the worst kind of criminal (which Dotcom for all his obnoxiousness is not).

He's a convicted criminal (identity theft back in the 90's). So yeah, he's a criminal. Also an alleged criminal in the US.

Don't know why I bother, but notice the little word "worst" in there. I can think of a lot worse crimes and criminals. Even for those we have to stand up for their rights though.

There's someone worse? So then it can't be that "...Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being"?

He's a leech, flat out. And his crimes aren't even the end of his scumbaggery.

We get it, he kicked your wife and seduced your dog or whatever. He still has rights to due process and not having his shit stolen by foreign governments and such.

If he wants due process, then he shouldn't be running and hiding from the courts.

I didn't realize spending the past five years under house arrest and in the courts counts as running and hiding from the courts. Does that mean that if he eventually gets sent to prison, and he sits quietly in his jail cell for years - that he's committing a prison break?

Word on the street is he was using his IT infrastructure to help Wikileaks, which would explain why the US government went out of bounds to punish him. He is not a US citizen, he never set foot in the US and he did not do business in the US yet they seized his bank accounts and assets in other countries and now they want to keep it because he is a "fugitive"? That really is above and beyond anything reasonable. Oh and this is supposed to be about him violating copyright law only?

Word on the street is he was using his IT infrastructure to help Wikileaks, which would explain why the US government went out of bounds to punish him. He is not a US citizen, he never set foot in the US and he did not do business in the US yet they seized his bank accounts and assets in other countries and now they want to keep it because he is a "fugitive"? That really is above and beyond anything reasonable. Oh and this is supposed to be about him violating copyright law only?

On what street? This one?

Probably? I assume the "word on the street" is actually based on Kim's tweet contributing to the [despicable] tinfoil Seth Rich conspiracy.

I didn't realize spending the past five years under house arrest and in the courts counts as running and hiding from the courts. Does that mean that if he eventually gets sent to prison, and he sits quietly in his jail cell for years - that he's committing a prison break?

It's the same thing Julian Assange is doing to hide from his rape charges.

I didn't realize spending the past five years under house arrest and in the courts counts as running and hiding from the courts. Does that mean that if he eventually gets sent to prison, and he sits quietly in his jail cell for years - that he's committing a prison break?

It's the same thing Julian Assange is doing to hide from his rape charges.

No it's not. Julian Assange is actually hiding - in an embassy - avoiding authorities. Dotcom have regular courtdates and are currently fighting legally in the courts.

That's because Dotcom, the defense maintains, isn't a fugitive because he is lawfully challenging his extradition in the New Zealand courts.

I find this argument quite compelling.

Refusing to roll over and waive/cede all your legal rights so that the prosecution has no opposition doesn't make you a fugitive.

Jumping bail would. But exhausting your appeals doesn't.

It's not compelling because if he successfully fights extradition, he still doesn't get those assets back. If he successfully argues that he broke no laws in New Zealand, and is not subject to extradition then he cannot be prosecuted there.But he still did break laws outside of New Zealand. He is subject to those laws outside of New Zealand and any assets he holds outside of New Zealand are also subject to the laws in which those assets are held.If you want to do things that are illegal in one nation but illegal in others you need to operate your businesses, live, and keep your assets in the nation or nations in which those actions are legal.If he wants to fight to retrieve the seized assets, then he's going to have to subject himself to that nation's legal authority in person. Legal rights and legal accountability are a matched set.

No.

In terms with international treaties on the subject. A person can only be held accountable to its laws where they are living at the time of the alleged crime. This also applies if people are travelling trough a country as tourist or for some other purpose.

If he didn't break the law in NZ he didn't break the law and the U.S is in violation of several treaties.

Kind of torn here. I'm against the government just seizing assets in a copyright violation situation...and really against any of these forfeitures that law-enforcement takes it upon themselves to just steal from people with little to no recourse....then again, Kim Dotcom is a scumbag and a vile excuse of a human being.

It's really not hard. Always stand up for principles. If you can't stand up for them when it comes to Dotcom they aren't worth anything. Any principle and legal right in a just society has to be measured on how well we can adhere to them in the face of the worst kind of criminal (which Dotcom for all his obnoxiousness is not).

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken

I didn't realize spending the past five years under house arrest and in the courts counts as running and hiding from the courts. Does that mean that if he eventually gets sent to prison, and he sits quietly in his jail cell for years - that he's committing a prison break?

It's the same thing Julian Assange is doing to hide from his rape charges.

No it's not. Julian Assange is actually hiding - in an embassy - avoiding authorities. Dotcom have regular courtdates and are currently fighting legally in the courts.

You are blatantly lying.

If Assanage is hiding, he's doing a really bad job of it. Both Assanage and Dotcom are hiding within the sovereign territory of one nation to escape prosecution in another nation. Both are making appeals within the legal systems of the countries in which they are residing to avoid being extradited. Both are also making efforts in the legal systems of the countries attempting to extradite them to get those nations to withdraw their extradition requests.The cases aren't the same, but there are an awful lot of similarities.

I didn't realize spending the past five years under house arrest and in the courts counts as running and hiding from the courts. Does that mean that if he eventually gets sent to prison, and he sits quietly in his jail cell for years - that he's committing a prison break?

It's the same thing Julian Assange is doing to hide from his rape charges.

No it's not. Julian Assange is actually hiding - in an embassy - avoiding authorities. Dotcom have regular courtdates and are currently fighting legally in the courts.

You are blatantly lying.

If Assanage is hiding, he's doing a really bad job of it. Both Assanage and Dotcom are hiding within the sovereign territory of one nation to escape prosecution in another nation. Both are making appeals within the legal systems of the countries in which they are residing to avoid being extradited. Both are also making efforts in the legal systems of the countries attempting to extradite them to get those nations to withdraw their extradition requests.The cases aren't the same, but there are an awful lot of similarities.

No you are blatantly lying too.

Assange is not involved in legal appeals. He's hiding on Ecuadorian soil because they do not have an extradition treaty with the UK (and they saw a political gain letting him in).

Even Americans don't believe me when I explain what is "eminent domain."Few people have a problem if a public road is to be built and some private houses are in the way and the government forces the owners to sell and are given a fair market price (or better)This is acceptable because the road is for everyone (the public.)

In the USA if a mall or housing development is wanted by a profit seeking person or company and you don't want to sell, or you want a higher price than you are being offered, it is perfectly legal for any state, city, county or federal government to force you off your property even if you do not accept what the government offers to pay you. The government who now owns the property, can sell the property (but often just gives it) to the profit seeking developer.

How many developed countries are allowed to do this to their private citizens simply to enrich some already enriched entity. Yet the US is so preachy proud of their "free markets" and lack of government interference.

Even before I read your post I thought of this case I read about a few days ago:

I didn't realize spending the past five years under house arrest and in the courts counts as running and hiding from the courts. Does that mean that if he eventually gets sent to prison, and he sits quietly in his jail cell for years - that he's committing a prison break?

It's the same thing Julian Assange is doing to hide from his rape charges.

No it's not. Julian Assange is actually hiding - in an embassy - avoiding authorities. Dotcom have regular courtdates and are currently fighting legally in the courts.

You are blatantly lying.

If Assanage is hiding, he's doing a really bad job of it. Both Assanage and Dotcom are hiding within the sovereign territory of one nation to escape prosecution in another nation. Both are making appeals within the legal systems of the countries in which they are residing to avoid being extradited. Both are also making efforts in the legal systems of the countries attempting to extradite them to get those nations to withdraw their extradition requests.The cases aren't the same, but there are an awful lot of similarities.

I think the fundamental difference is Dotcom never fled or went to an embassy, he's been participating in the legal process in his home country. Assange fled to a third party country's embassy to effectively hide, legally speaking. He may be publicly making noise like Dotcom, but he didn't play by the "rules". Dotcom, for whatever you think of him, is playing by the rules and never fled. This is my basic understanding of the two.

Irrelevant, but it also seems like "copyright theft" and "rape" should be treated a wee bit differently. I suppose that may also explain each mans' actions to some extent.

That's because Dotcom, the defense maintains, isn't a fugitive because he is lawfully challenging his extradition in the New Zealand courts.

I find this argument quite compelling.

Refusing to roll over and waive/cede all your legal rights so that the prosecution has no opposition doesn't make you a fugitive.

Jumping bail would. But exhausting your appeals doesn't.

It's not compelling because if he successfully fights extradition, he still doesn't get those assets back. If he successfully argues that he broke no laws in New Zealand, and is not subject to extradition then he cannot be prosecuted there.But he still did break laws outside of New Zealand. He is subject to those laws outside of New Zealand and any assets he holds outside of New Zealand are also subject to the laws in which those assets are held.If you want to do things that are illegal in one nation but illegal in others you need to operate your businesses, live, and keep your assets in the nation or nations in which those actions are legal.If he wants to fight to retrieve the seized assets, then he's going to have to subject himself to that nation's legal authority in person. Legal rights and legal accountability are a matched set.

No.

In terms with international treaties on the subject. A person can only be held accountable to its laws where they are living at the time of the alleged crime. This also applies if people are travelling trough a country as tourist or for some other purpose.

The list is much longer than that. From the link you provided, for example:

Quote:

(h) the person, whether natural or juridical, regularly carries on business in the state; (i) the person, whether natural or juridical, had carried on activity in the state, but only in respect of such activity;

Which is at least somewhere in the vicinity of Kim's situation. Of course it's going to take several more years for this to run it's course through the actual trial and appeals and so on but it won't be about where he physically lived at the time.

Some of you: Dotcom didn't do anything wrong, this was illegal seizure.Some of you: Dotcom stole but taking his property is too far.Others: Dotcom was a dbag. He bought those items with money gained from illegal "warez" and "music" sharing.

Do most even have a clue how Megaupload operated?Did anyone here even use the service? (either as a lurker, sharer or megasharer, or monetizer with ads or payments?)I am curious as to why people feel this guy is ok. That its acceptable to steal, monetize a venue for others to steal and give away property that doesn't belong to you. And I am not talking about the "legally" seized props.

That's because Dotcom, the defense maintains, isn't a fugitive because he is lawfully challenging his extradition in the New Zealand courts.

I find this argument quite compelling.

Refusing to roll over and waive/cede all your legal rights so that the prosecution has no opposition doesn't make you a fugitive.

Jumping bail would. But exhausting your appeals doesn't.

It's not compelling because if he successfully fights extradition, he still doesn't get those assets back. If he successfully argues that he broke no laws in New Zealand, and is not subject to extradition then he cannot be prosecuted there.But he still did break laws outside of New Zealand. He is subject to those laws outside of New Zealand and any assets he holds outside of New Zealand are also subject to the laws in which those assets are held.If you want to do things that are illegal in one nation but illegal in others you need to operate your businesses, live, and keep your assets in the nation or nations in which those actions are legal.If he wants to fight to retrieve the seized assets, then he's going to have to subject himself to that nation's legal authority in person. Legal rights and legal accountability are a matched set.

Aside from the servers which were rented, his "assets" weren't in the US. What jurisdiction did we have to take them?

We didn't directly take them, the nations in which they were located seized them. They did so at our request and due to treaty obligations they have chosen to enter into. You are correct that we don't have the authority to just go and take the assets held in those sovereign nations, but those nations do have the authority to seize the assets. Dotcom can fight the seizure of those assets in the legal system of the country in which they were seized as well, at least as long as they remain in those nations. He's just unlikely to have any more success there than in the US. No sovereign nation is going to let you appeal their decisions on assets they seized in relation to criminal activity without you being willing to subject yourself to their legal authority. He can go to Hong Kong and seek to have his finical assets that were seized there released, but he would most likely either be prosecuted there or extricated to the US from there if they didn't want to prosecute him themselves because what Dotcom was doing was illegal under their laws.As for anything that was seized and then transferred to the United States, it's under US jurisdiction now. Dotcom is welcome to argue that the nation in which it was seized should not have done so but it won't change the fact that the assets are within the jurisdiction of the US government and the US government has no obligation to return them until the criminal and civil cases have been resolved.Dotcom is free to sue New Zealand for unlawfully taking his property under New Zealand law. If the courts find that the New Zealand government acted against their own laws, then they could in theory demand that the New Zealand government to attempt to retrieve the property or compensate Dotcom.

Some of you: Dotcom didn't do anything wrong, this was illegal seizure.Some of you: Dotcom stole but taking his property is too far.Others: Dotcom was a dbag. He bought those items with money gained from illegal "warez" and "music" sharing.

Do most even have a clue how Megaupload operated?Did anyone here even use the service? (either as a lurker, sharer or megasharer, or monetizer with ads or payments?)I am curious as to why people feel this guy is ok. That its acceptable to steal, monetize a venue for others to steal and give away property that doesn't belong to you. And I am not talking about the "legally" seized props.

This is a two wrong do not make a right situation.

I don't like the guy, and he has a sordid history, but he is currently accused, not convicted of a parcel of crimes, and the legal basis for those accusations is still being determined. Bending and/or breaking the rule of law is bad.

As a poster just above me noted, if Dotcom is bad, then a host of other high profile companies are also profiting from the very same activities.

We don't get to throw out protections for the accused and legal process because the accused is a d-bag. The US did some very dubious things to seize a whole lot of money and assets (conveniently the money the accused needs to use for legal defense). Seems a bit rigged to let the US Gov bring the full might of the FBI on someone and deny them the resources to properly fight back. And the NZ government appears to be running around trying to save face while not pissing of the US at the same time.

I didn't realize spending the past five years under house arrest and in the courts counts as running and hiding from the courts. Does that mean that if he eventually gets sent to prison, and he sits quietly in his jail cell for years - that he's committing a prison break?

It's the same thing Julian Assange is doing to hide from his rape charges.

No it's not. Julian Assange is actually hiding - in an embassy - avoiding authorities. Dotcom have regular courtdates and are currently fighting legally in the courts.

You are blatantly lying.

If Assanage is hiding, he's doing a really bad job of it. Both Assanage and Dotcom are hiding within the sovereign territory of one nation to escape prosecution in another nation. Both are making appeals within the legal systems of the countries in which they are residing to avoid being extradited. Both are also making efforts in the legal systems of the countries attempting to extradite them to get those nations to withdraw their extradition requests.The cases aren't the same, but there are an awful lot of similarities.

Except Assange isn't doing anything like that, he's just hiding in a wardrobe jerking off to the thought of Team America breaking down the door to "come and get him" whilst shitposting on Twitter.

Irrelevant, but it also seems like "copyright theft" and "rape" should be treated a wee bit differently. I suppose that may also explain each mans' actions to some extent.

And going by America's legal attitudes towards the two crimes, that different treatment is:

"Those dastardly copyright thieves should get all the books thrown at them, indeed! And then some! Those poor rapists on the other hand were only having a bit of fun, and they're good at SPORTS, a harsh word and a whispered warning to not get caught again should be enough."

Even Americans don't believe me when I explain what is "eminent domain."Few people have a problem if a public road is to be built and some private houses are in the way and the government forces the owners to sell and are given a fair market price (or better)This is acceptable because the road is for everyone (the public.)

In the USA if a mall or housing development is wanted by a profit seeking person or company and you don't want to sell, or you want a higher price than you are being offered, it is perfectly legal for any state, city, county or federal government to force you off your property even if you do not accept what the government offers to pay you. The government who now owns the property, can sell the property (but often just gives it) to the profit seeking developer.

How many developed countries are allowed to do this to their private citizens simply to enrich some already enriched entity. Yet the US is so preachy proud of their "free markets" and lack of government interference.

I had a long coversation with a lady who was in my facility about a prime example of this just this weekend.

There was a spot over here in Wayne County (Detroit Michigan area), a group of developers wanted to build a horse track back in 2006/2007. So they managed to convince the Wayne County land bank to do exactly that to about 300+ acres of land owned by farms, homes, small businesses etc. - Sell or be condemned.

They then turned that around and sold it to the developer group for $1.00 on the 'promise' that the project would bring in 1000 construction jobs and 1000 full time jobs to the area. They developed the area, built the track, opened for two years in the middle of the bank crash and then promptly went bankrupt.

They now have the land listed for about 8 mil, they owe 2.5 mil in back unpaid taxes, and it now is an unmitigated blight on the area.

This is what happens when the government trumps the rights of individuals, and while I can understand eminent domain for -public- projects (freeway expansions, roads, sewers, etc where the public at large has a concrete benefit, these speculative PRIVATE projects for the wealthy are more often failures which cost the public more than they'll ever get back.

Even Americans don't believe me when I explain what is "eminent domain."In the USA if a mall or housing development is wanted by a profit seeking person or company and you don't want to sell, or you want a higher price than you are being offered, it is perfectly legal for any state, city, county or federal government to force you off your property even if you do not accept what the government offers to pay you.

Yes. The law as written allows for "reverse tax auctions" although they have not yet been implemented anywhere. Since they are legal, the chances of NOT seeing them in the future is nil.

A reverse tax auction is when EVERY property in a tax district is put up for public auction regardless of the owner's wishes. The amount of a bid is NOT the amount you will pay for the property (that's free), it's the amount you agree to pay in yearly property taxes. The highest bidder gets the property.

Eminent domain need only enhance the public good, and what's better for the public institutions of a town than the highest possible tax revenue?

So he's still going through the legal process in NZ, he's not on the run from the law, he's not been convicted of any crime, nor has the property in question been proven to be purchased with the proceeds of crime. What basis in law is there for this theft?

I'm curious. How would you feel if he were living in a non-extradition country? Would you still feel that the forfeitures were unfair?